Incidentally, what the hell is it with the cliche police around here? Everyone uses cliches. We try not to (really we do), but it seems as if some of us are reading reviews as cliche Easter Egg hunts. Finding one doesn't devalue the entire rest of the work.

And by tonight or tomorrow, I mean my verdicts will be up tomorrow. Not tonight. Too burnt out. Just going to go home in a bit, pour a nice strong drink and level grind in FF XII or something that takes an equally few number of brain cells to do (like.....sleeping).

The main reason I hate the use of the phrase "onto the review" isn't because it's overused and is most often utilized by GameFAQs amateurs who have a lot of other problems with their reviews, though that's certainly part of it. What I hate about that phrase is what it implies. I thought I was already reading the review? So what have I been reading the last few paragraphs if the review hasn't begun yet? And it applies as such to Will's: His opening paragraph was more of a personal entrance than a legimate introduction. So not only does that phrase make me cringe, but it usually means something is wrong with your review.

While true, that means that one should be criticising the thing that is wrong, rather than the phrase that tends to imply something is amiss. To instead harp on about that string of words is like trying to cure leprosy with stitches.

While true, that means that one should be criticising the thing that is wrong, rather than the phrase that tends to imply something is amiss. To instead harp on about that string of words is like trying to cure leprosy with stitches.

I GUESS THAT'S WHY EVERYONE WROTE A BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF IN THEIR CRITIQUES, BOSS. People overreact to them (though really it's best to avoid cliches), but no one is handling them as an instant loss either. I don't see why this warrants so much discussion.

I think you need to calm down, Will. I know your review isn't being received well, but there's no reason to take it out on Genj. He's only trying to justify what many of us have been saying about your review. Don't enter a competition if you can't take criticism.

Criticism, which is what has chiefely populated this thread, is fine. Mockery, i.e. people taking phrases they despise out of my review and throwing them back at me, among other things, I will not tolerate.

Don't take Internet mockery seriously because you're likely interpreting far more malice than was intended. Sorry, I think it's funny that we're having a discussion on a tiny, minor part of a review that had bigger problems. This isn't really the kind of thing you can argue to people to think your way. It's just opinion. You have to take what you want from critiques because you're likely not going to agree with everything. Drella for example wasn't too keen on my FUCK SHIT SHIT BITCH CUNT sailor talk in my Bouncer review, but some (sick) individuals seem to think this Trademark Humorô is funny. It'd be a little different if for example people were saying your review was otherwise fine but instant crap due to one sentence. That would be stupid.

I'm sorry I upset you, bro. I'd buy you a beer but I'm a cheap asshole.

Okay, I haven't read any of the reviews yet, as I'm not doing my judging until tomorrow, but with the ongoing hostility over things at the time, I have to say a couple things.

TO WILL: I was in your place last year at the Summer Team Tournament. Pissed at the judges for why I got voted against. In a match I was confident I'd win, I lost 2-1. The reason: I reviewed Hydlide -- a horrible NES game that had been bashed to hell and back before I started reviewing. To me, it was a fun, witty bash review.....to two judges it was a "been there/done that....NEXT!" review. And I didn't exactly handle that reasoning well, either. But that's the thing....we all have our prejudices. I'm not overly fond of puzzle games, so if I'm judging something and you hit up Adventures of Lolo or something.....you're not going to score well with me unless you absolutely kick ass with your review to the degree I forget what your subject matter was.

TO NON-WILLs: Most of us have been there, where something we wrote we liked got derided by others. Suskie took down a Riddick review (or said he would) because it was judged as "not a review", but just a promo of the intro. I had my STT 2007 incident over Hydlide. Others have had their issues with a score they've received. Probably the reason non-HGers occasionally bring up the "elitist" tag....a lot of us are very demanding when it comes to judging things and minor stuff one person might think is okay or cool will get blasted by others.

Overall, it's no huge thing, nor should it be. Write how you want. As long as it's quality, it'll be accepted. I have my share of more gimmicky reviews....some I've used in contests; others I haven't....overall, each review you write, whether they get received well or not, is just another brick in the wall.

Okay, the alcohol is disrupting my coherency as far as making points. I'm ending this now and going to bed....

a lot of us are very demanding when it comes to judging things and minor stuff one person might think is okay or cool will get blasted by others.

A lot of it comes from doing the 1 on 1 match-ups. Normally minor things aren't going to affect your numeric score much, but when you're just trying to choose one review over another, every little point matters (especially when it's a close match like Venter v. Cairo).

Felix over darketernal. The Basted review was well written if not entirely convincing, as most everyone else has stated. I thought it was more enjoyable to read than darketernal's, though, because his did feel a little rough in spots and I'm pretty sure I've read it before where as I haven't read Felix's review until now.

EmP over willthegreat. EmP's review was very thick in the way it was written. Thankfully, I'm a brilliant man, so I could understand what he was saying. Will's review made me feel like a naive fool. I didn't understand a lot of the RTS terms he was using. I don't think I was the intended audience for that review.

honestgamer over johnny_cairo. I probably would have given Cairo the vote if not for having read Suskie's equally entertaining bash review for Assassin's Creed not too long ago (Developer's Creed, hilarious). I'm not sure whose review came out first. It may have been Cairo's since I'm too lazy to check, but sometimes that's how these things go. It was a close match otherwise. Honestgamer's review was very clean and convincing given its subject matter. I walked away feeling confident in knowing that his review had just taught me something new.

I have some problems with both reviews. Felix harps on for a while about how a console I have proven does not exist beats out the 16bit generation, and thatís fine so long as youíre delusional. Also, hereís a typo:

Itís s simple us against them theme with a silly love story thrown in for good measure. Itís nothing epic, but it sure if heartfelt.

I donít think that the lack of story is as killer here as people are saying. Seeing as the game can only last a few hours, I wonder what plot analysts you can offer without straying into mid-game spoilers. But it does mean like the review is missing a chunk of information that Iíd expect to see. The intro was overcooked, hazy and needed a stronger focus point.

DE could and should have picked something more recent. This review is good, but it has all the structure of a DE review before he really hit his stride and the fact that so much of this review is my editing hangs heavy in my mind. I get the blush joke at the end (Janusí assumption is correct) but I also donít know why I didnít push you for more solid examples back in the day. Thereís a lot of tell, but donít show.

Felix is the more adventurous, DEís is the more solid. But, in the end, DEís review convinced me of more while Felix seems to have made the whole Golden Age intro gave him a lot to build towards and I donít think he effectively hitís the bar he set for himself. You both have better reviews to call on.

WINNER: DE

VENTER vs. CARIO

I had something here, but it looks like I only copy & pasted the above thoughts from my wordpad, and then closed the app and lost all the pretty wrods.

So you all get a RECAP version. I think Jason's review is great, the guy's been on a run of solid reviews which has helped mask the fact I've been on a review hiatus and this is no different. Cario, though, writes a savage review that may clearly exagerrate flaws to help slide the game into the 3/10 score he' decidedc it deserves. I'll shock Mike and agree with him on something; it was a case of a majestic review beating a brilliant one, forcing me to give the nod to Cario. Venter goes out on a shield.

Dear me. Don't close this yet! I wanted to get feedback for you, but I can't now because I'm too busy with getting ready for school... If you want to hear from me, you'll have to wait till Sunday/Monday or later when I'm settled in again... and have decent time to put proper thought into this.

What espiga does in his free time[Eating EmP's brain] probably isn't a good idea. I mean... He's British, which means his brain's wired for PAL and your eyes are NTSC. - Will

Well, guess since this is closing tonight, I'll just put my votes in without feedback. I'll come back and edit feedback in when I'm settled back in school... Which might take at least a week. I dunno. Hopefully then you'll all know why I voted the way I did. Since it may or may not confuse some people.

Felix over DE

EmP over Will

Jason over Cairo.

What espiga does in his free time[Eating EmP's brain] probably isn't a good idea. I mean... He's British, which means his brain's wired for PAL and your eyes are NTSC. - Will

FELIX vs. DE
I have a thought in my head that I might have judged Felix's review for something at some time. Or at least read it critically. I recall liking it a lot, as it was an engaging read of an RPG I'd never heard of. I still like it. But, this time, it did feel like you took a bit too long getting to the point. Three paragraphs building up to how this was one of the earliest cinema-driven RPGs might have been a bit of overkill. Still, overall, it was a good read about interesting subject matter. On the other hand, while I liked reading DE's review, after finishing it, I realized I really didn't know much more about the game than I had when I started it. With point-n-click adventures, the main focus tends to be on puzzles, but you only really gave a vague description of how some (like putting pen on paper) are easy, but others aren't. If puzzles are a focal point of the game, I would have liked a bit more of a description of them, but instead it seemed like you went into more detail about every other aspect of the game.
WINNER: FELIX

WILL vs. IMP
You know, I once played a RTS. It was the original Warcraft. I had a good time until the orcs got more aggressive on about the seventh or eighth level. There I was, methodically trying to build my community and next thing I know catapults and shit are just destroying me. So, I entered the game's god mode and blasted through it, not taking it out of god mode until I was ready to destroy the final building of the final level. Since I did that in regular mode, I considered it an honorable victory. The end. In other words, I'm not an experienced RTS player and, from my experience, I utterly suck at 'em when the computer makes it so I actually have to think fast. While I thought your review was good, it did seem to be a niche review, as it assumed a lot of familiarity with RTS games in general and the initial Supreme Commander. Which would be great if I was reading this as an aid in determining if I wanted to buy this game. Not so great when it's a contest, as a lot of stuff here kinda went over my head. It still wasn't a blowout decision though, as EmP's adventure review reminded me of the one by (maybe) DoI (or someone else) in that it started out very eloquently written, but when the flaws started to be mentioned, tailed off a bit. It was a solid review, just not one of your best. You did give a better puzzle description than DE, so you get credit for that, but I don't know that anything could convince me that a game in which you get "attacked" by a monk that never moves, giving you infinite time to figure out how to kill it by methodically searching a room is actually fun, regardless of how gothic or atmospheric it may be.
WINNER: IMP

HG vs. JC
With a random draw tournament, there is the opportunity for tragedy ó in this case that when this round is over, one of these two excellent reviews will still send its writer on the long, one-way trip to LOSERVILLE: POPULATION YOU.
My verdict later. I'm tired and need a nap now. Either late tonight or over the weekend. So, yeah, EmP! You can't close this round yet! Maybe not for days! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!